Snake Anti-ship missiles

[Thiosk (OP)]

Greetings!

As my race takes its furtive first steps into the galaxy, the bigness of it all dawns on them.  Big and empty.

And possibly full of things with nasty sharp pointy teeth.

We need missiles, friends, big missiles, small missiles, crazy missiles.

Please critique my design for a SIZE 4 Antiship missile: the Snake MK1.
Fairly basic starter techs.  I removed passive sensing, because those had such tiny ranges.

Let me know what I've done wrong and what I've done right.

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 80 MSP  (4 HS)     Warhead: 46    Armour: 3     Manoeuvre Rating: 22
Speed: 22500 km/s    Endurance: 31 minutes   Range: 42.2m km
Active Sensor Strength: 1.155    Resolution: 5000    Maximum Range: 57,750,000 km    
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.33    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  330,000 km
EM Sensor Strength: 0.33    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  330,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 44.365
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 495%   3k km/s 154%   5k km/s 99%   10k km/s 49.5%
Materials Required:    12.25x Tritanium   1.815x Uridium   53.15x Gallicite   Fuel x37500
Oh, i guess thats a size 80 missile.  80 MSP, rather than 4 HS.  Thought I was piling a lot on there.

Heres my new Striker class missile.

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 4 MSP  (0.2 HS)     Warhead: 5    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 22
Speed: 10500 km/s    Endurance: 45 minutes   Range: 28.1m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.84    Resolution: 4000    Maximum Range: 33,600,000 km     
Cost Per Missile: 3.09
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 231%   3k km/s 66%   5k km/s 46.2%   10k km/s 23.1%
Materials Required:    1.25x Tritanium   0.84x Uridium   1.65x Gallicite   Fuel x1250

Development Cost for Project: 309RP

[Tarran]

Both missiles: The warheads are sub-optimal for armor piercing (optimal numbers are square numbers), as missiles leave triangle-shaped craters in the armor. Anything that's not square has it's actual damage against the armor rounded down to the last square number (e.g with 45 WH missile, you would only make the same triangle damage as a 36 WH missile). The extra points in warhead are only useful for when the armor is pierced. Though most of your missiles will be spend on the armor, not the internals, since when you hit internals they don't really last that long.

The snake's size is also way to high. The sheer size of the missile launchers needed to fire it will take up most of the ship. I'd really cut down on the size of that monster. Also, the Strikers have more bang for the buck (one Snake does 46 WH damage, in comparison 20 Stikers [same overall MSP] do 100 WH damage), making the Snake seem like a waste of resources for just a little more range.

[Steve Walmsley]

Both missiles: The warheads are sub-optimal for armor piercing (optimal numbers are square numbers), as missiles leave triangle-shaped craters in the armor. Anything that's not square has it's actual damage against the armor rounded down to the last square number (e.g with 45 WH missile, you would only make the same triangle damage as a 36 WH missile). The extra points in warhead are only useful for when the armor is pierced. Though most of your missiles will be spend on the armor, not the internals, since when you hit internals they don't really last that long.

The extra warhead points aren't lost. It just means the damage to the armour isn't a perfect triangle. For example a 9 point warhead would have a 5-3-1 damage template while an 11 point warhead would have a 6-4-1 template and a 12 point warhead would be 6-4-2, etc. Yes, it true that the ideal ratio of damage to penetration (in terms of the most penetration for the least total damage) is always a square, such as 4, 9, 16, etc. but I have never believed it's that important. For example, the extra width of a ten point warhead (6-3-1) may be the spot where the next missile arrives, effectively giving it more penetration. When you are firing a lot of missiles at a target, it will all work itself out in the end.

Steve

[Tarran]

The extra warhead points aren't lost. It just means the damage to the armour isn't a perfect triangle. For example a 9 point warhead would have a 5-3-1 damage template while an 11 point warhead would have a 6-4-1 template and a 12 point warhead would be 6-4-2, etc. Yes, it true that the ideal ratio of damage to penetration (in terms of the most penetration for the least total damage) is always a square, such as 4, 9, 16, etc. but I have never believed it's that important. For example, the extra width of a ten point warhead (6-3-1) may be the spot where the next missile arrives, effectively giving it more penetration. When you are firing a lot of missiles at a target, it will all work itself out in the end.

Oh really? Huh, never knew that. Looks like the wiki needs changing.

[ZimRathbone]

The snake is too big - in addition to the fine points by Tarran on the size of the launcher (80 HS - 4000 tons - as big as my covettes!) it will have an appalling reload rate at normal size (1 shot every 40 minutes at basic tech - even at the reload 5 level that means 8 minutes between shots). If you use reduced size launchers this gets even worse.  And its expensive - you wont be able to build a lot of these unless your pop or tech is quite high 
I'd only have 1 onboard sensor. 

For both missiles, the Active sensor resolution size is way too high (its looking for ships of 250 000 tons plus on the snake, 200,000 tons for the Striker) - I'd chose something like res 100 or 200 (ie looking for 5000 - 10000 ton ships). Remember you dont need to provide on-board guidance for the whole range of the missile, just sufficient for it to pick up a new target if it loses the old one or the guiding ship once it reaches the point where it thought its target was going to be.  I usually have this at around 2x the distance that the missile will travel in a single 5 sec pulse (or 10x the speed) eg for the striker about 100,000km.  I never try to put actives sized for smaller vessels or gunboats/fighters as youve seen its too hard to make something that will pick these up at any reasonable range

Given the  speeds,  they're both also an easy mark for cheap AMM interception at even quite low tech levels.

If you drop the sensors a bit on the Striker, and put it into engine, it could probably make a fair anti Gunboat/light unit missile ie for use against lightly armoured vessels.  Against larger units with armour greater than 5 then it will really only be sandblasting its way in - usefull in large numbers but not going to give HMS Hood type kills

[Steve Walmsley]

Oh really? Huh, never knew that. Looks like the wiki needs changing.

Yes, you are right. I don't have permission to alter the wiki though . It's not something to which I have contributed.

Steve

[Thiosk (OP)]

Interesting information from all.  Yes, the Snake is uh, yeah I was just putting numbers in.  Interesting that I don't need active guidance throughout the whole range.

My technology levels are fairly low.  What kind of speeds and warheads sizes are typical of folks building early-game PDC-class defense missile bases and antiship defenses?

I'm going to assume that for an AMM series one would want very high agility, very high speed, but small warhead size.

[Tarran]

Yes, you are right. I don't have permission to alter the wiki though . It's not something to which I have contributed.

Steve

The creator of Aurora can't edit the wiki?! GASP.

Anyway, just wondering, would a size 13 WH missile be 6-4-2-1 squares of damage, or 7-4-2?

[Erik L]

Yes, you are right. I don't have permission to alter the wiki though . It's not something to which I have contributed.

Steve

A security method did not quite work as advertised. I've removed it so edits should be able to occur again.

[Ziusudra]

I'm going to assume that for an AMM series one would want very high agility, very high speed, but small warhead size.

For anti-missiles it's all about "chance to hit". I start off with warhead strength of 1, then add engine power and fuel to get the range I want (currently using 2.5m km.) From there I add agility and remove engine power to get the best chance to hit I can. The calculation for chance to hit is explained at the top right of the missile design window.

To increase the manoeuvre rating (MR), agility has to go over a threshold. For a size 1 missile, that threshold is at every x.5 of agility value. So, 0.5 adds 1 MR, 1.5 adds 2, ...

[sloanjh]

Anyway, just wondering, would a size 13 WH missile be 6-4-2-1 squares of damage, or 7-4-2?

7-4-2.  You can't have a vertical "wall" on either side that's 2 or more steps high.  To put it another way, you need 3 more points at level N than level N+1 before another point goes to level N+1.

Note that beam weapons have a different template that's typically narrower and deeper.

John

[Deutschbag]

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 4 MSP  (0.2 HS)     Warhead: 5    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 22
Speed: 10500 km/s    Endurance: 45 minutes   Range: 28.1m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.84    Resolution: 4000    Maximum Range: 33,600,000 km     
Cost Per Missile: 3.09
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 231%   3k km/s 66%   5k km/s 46.2%   10k km/s 23.1%
Materials Required:    1.25x Tritanium   0.84x Uridium   1.65x Gallicite   Fuel x1250

Development Cost for Project: 309RP

The resolution on your sensors is extremely high. You won't be able to see anything until it's super close with that high resolution. I'd drop the active sensor altogether and instead just stick more warhead and/or engine on.

[Thiosk (OP)]

So I could in effect pull the sensors off the missle entirely, letting the fire control handle it?

[Beersatron]

So I could in effect pull the sensors off the missle entirely, letting the fire control handle it?

Yes, as long as you keep the fire control within range of the target.

[Thiosk (OP)]

Curious!  Well, I hope to install redesigned systems and start putting ships out with new missile and anti missile hardware sometime tonight.

Cheers